Order: This hearing arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1990 passed by the Learned Executive Magistrate, Malda in Case No. 149M of 1990 being a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. attaching the tank fishery of the revisionists and appointing the Officer-in-Charge. English Bazar Police Station as Receiver/Custodian of the said tank fishery. 2. At the outset it may be stated that the Learned Lawyer for the revisionists has submitted that the revision application in so far as opposite parties No. 11, 14, 29, 30, 31 and 37 are concerned may be dismissed as not pressed. 3. The petitioners claimed to be the absolute owners of the tank fishery known as "Patalchandi Beel" situated in two Mouzas-appertaining to plot No. 125/148 measuring 5.31 acres in Bayaspur and plot no. 242 measuring 11.A2 acres in Mouza Bayaspur Araji English, Dist, Maida. The petitioners have been rearing fishes in the said tank fishery for a long time under their peaceful possession. According to the petitioners there is a plot being No, 125/151 of Mouza Bayaspur measuring about 4 decimals which is used by the Hindus for religious purpose situated on the southern corner of the tank fishery. It is actually a field where Hindu villagers can perform some religious services. The respondent nos. 1 to 38 (less the 6 persons mentioned above) led by one Jatin Mondal held out threats to take forcible possession of the tank fishery knowing fully well that they had no right to take forcible possession of the said tank fishery. The petitioners made several representations praying for protection of their lives and properties but the authority did not take any action. By an order dated 13th August, 1990, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Maida promulgated an order under Section 144 Cr. P. C. restraining the entry of any person or assembly of more than four persons in the said tank fishery until further orders in Case No. 100M of 1990. That order is no longer in force. By an order dated 12-12-90 the Learned Executive Magistrate, Malda. in Case No. 149M of 1990 being a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. That order is no longer in force. By an order dated 12-12-90 the Learned Executive Magistrate, Malda. in Case No. 149M of 1990 being a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. attached the said tank fishery and appointed the O.C., English Bazar Police Station a Receiver/Custodian of the said tank fishery and permitted him to catch fish and deposit the sale proceeds. The Receiver was appointed only in respect of plot No. 125/148 in Mouza Bayaspur and not in respect of the total tank fishery. The said order, according to the revisionists, is plapably illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the revisionists has come before this Court on the following amongst other grounds; that the Learned Magistrate acted illegally and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 146(1) Cr. P. C.; that the order of attachment and appointment of Receiver was beyond jurisdiction as the Learned Magistrate did not consider the case to be one of emergency nor did he decide that none of the parties was in possession; that the order of the Learned Magistrate is bad in law and in facts and is not maintainable. 5. The application is opposed by the opposite parties No. 21 and 39. 6. The only point for consideration is whether there is any ground for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction in this case. 7. A plain reading of the impugned order dated 12-12-90 passed by the Learned Executive Magistrate, Maida in Case No. 149M/90 reveals that the foundation of the order was the perception of the Learned Magistrate that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace in between the parties over the possession of the beel in dispute. Secondly, the Learned Magistrate appointed the O.C., English Bazar P. S. as Receiver/Custodian of the beel without discharging his statutory duty under Section 146(1) Cr. P. C. There is another inherent difficulty in the order passed by the Learned Magistrate which has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Learned Lawyer for the revisionists. The tank fishery is one and undivided. It is recorded in two dags as stated above. Therefore, attachment of one of the dags measuring about 1/4th of the total area was meaningless. 8. The tank fishery is one and undivided. It is recorded in two dags as stated above. Therefore, attachment of one of the dags measuring about 1/4th of the total area was meaningless. 8. The order of the Learned Magistrate is not faulted on the ground that he passed an order under Section 145(1) of the Cr .P.C. The attack has come that as the Learned Magistrate has attached the property and appointed a Receiver/Custodian under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. The salutary requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 146 is that the Magistrate considers the case to be one of emergency or if he decides that none of the parties was then in possession as referred to in Section 145 or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in possession of the subject of the dispute he may attach the subject matter of the dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto. In the instant case, the Learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to ascertain whether any of the parties was in possession at the material time or the Learned Magistrate failed to state that he was unable to satisfy as to which of the parties was then in possession of the subject of dispute. Presumably the Learned Magistrate considered the case to be one of emergency. But plain reading of the order dated 12-12-90 does not show that the Learned Magistrate thought that there was an emergency. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:- "Whereas it has been made clear to me that there is an apprehension of breach of peace in between the parties over the possession of the beel in dispute, I do order u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. restraining both the parties from entering into the Patalchandi Beel as shown in the schedule below and fixing date on 15-1-91 for filing of affidavits, papers, W. S. if any in support of their claim. Further, it appears that distrubances may likely to occur in regard to standing fish on the Beel". 9. There is no whisper that the Learned Magistrate considered the case to be one of the emergency. 'Disturbance' is different from 'Emergency'. Any departure from the normal state of affairs is a disturbance but an emergency means an unexpected course, a pressing necessity. Any disturbance of any degree cannot constitute an emergency. 9. There is no whisper that the Learned Magistrate considered the case to be one of the emergency. 'Disturbance' is different from 'Emergency'. Any departure from the normal state of affairs is a disturbance but an emergency means an unexpected course, a pressing necessity. Any disturbance of any degree cannot constitute an emergency. It has got to be a .disturbance of high magnitude or wide sweep which may be described as an emergency. The Learned Magistrate here failed to distinguish between the two concepts and accordingly mis-applied the law. 10. Moreover, there are conflict of decisions as to whether a composite order under Section 145(1) and under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. can be passed. In some cases it has been held that the composite order is illegal. (Vide 1982 Cr.L.J. 468; 1982 Cr. L.J. 17). In some other cases, it has been held that order of attachment on the ground of emergency can be made ex parte after making the preliminary order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, if the Magistrate exercises his independent mind on both the questions separately and passes a composite order. But if he does not record separate orders one after another, it would be illegal. (1983 Cr.L.J. 718; 1983 Cr.L.J. 18, 198G Cr.L.J. 2). In this case, the Learned Magistrate did not exercise his independent mind on both the questions separately but passed a composite order. Therefore, this composite order was illegal. In view of the discussions made above, I hold that the revisional application should be allowed. The impugned order being without jurisdiction cannot stand and is quashed accordingly. Revisional application allowed; impugned order quashed.